Download "Murder, war, terror: Are you on the right side? | Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck"

There are two criteria for deciding whether one is on the "right" side: a formal one and a substantive one. Formal: Is one's position consistent or arbitrary? Substantive: Are red lines of humanity being crossed? Anyone who approves of war terror or murder is not on the good side. Napalm Girl: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_of_War Bombing Night of Darmstadt: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriff_auf_Darmstadt ►FURTHER INFORMATION FROM TEAM RIECK: The game-theoretical analysis of moral positions is reduced to the evaluation of strategic consistency. Rationality requires that rules of behavior must be formulated universally. Applied to ethical systems, this means: A moral position is only strategically coherent if its underlying principles are generalizable without leading to contradictory behavior. Kant's categorical imperative finds its game-theoretical equivalent here. A maxim that is not generalizable necessarily creates unstable strategic situations. The case of the "three birds" in India exemplifies this: If the same hygiene norm were applied consistently, it would lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry – a clearly undesirable situation. Arbitrary application of rules destroys the predictability that is essential for any strategic equilibrium. Beyond formal consistency, however, there are non-negotiable principles. Crimes against humanity – operationalized through dehumanization and systematic violence – represent strategic actions that are exogenous to the game and define it in the first place. They violate the minimal prerequisites for strategic interaction, namely the recognition of the other party as a rational actor. Bandura's theory of moral disengagement describes the mechanism by which actors circumvent their own cognitive constraints to make such actions possible. The Geneva Conventions can be interpreted as an attempt to codify these minimal constraints in international law. According to Festinger, cognitive dissonance represents a stabilizing mechanism for inconsistent strategies: actors adjust their preferences to rationalize contradictory behavior. Propaganda and framing, in turn, manipulate the perception of the payoff matrix—they change how actors evaluate the consequences of their strategies. The real analytical challenge is that while game-theoretic models can assess consistency, the initial payoffs must be set externally. Assessing humanity versus inhumanity is not a game-theoretic problem, but a meta-theoretical one. Game theory can only reveal which strategies are stable under given payoffs—not whether these payoffs themselves are morally justifiable. Therefore, the ultimate evaluation of "right" and "wrong" sides remains a matter of philosophical foundation. Game theory provides the tool for consistency testing, not for substantive moral justification. ►MORE FROM CHRISTIAN RIECK: ○YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ProfRieck?sub_confirmation=1 ○Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/profrieck ○Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProfRieck ○LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/profrieck #profrieck #charliekirk #politics Disclaimer: This is an educational channel, not a financial, legal, or medical channel. The content of my videos and podcasts is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or medical advice, nor does it constitute a personal recommendation. Please always obtain information from multiple independent sources and seek professional advice for your decisions, especially in the areas of investments or medicine. The opinions expressed do not constitute an invitation to act. They are not a solicitation to buy or sell any assets, including securities or tangible assets. Nor is it an invitation to engage in any form of self-treatment or self-diagnosis. Please take these instructions seriously.